If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Civil War monument topic

I did not know this, but I found it on the internet, so it must be true.

I'm curious if this person's history lesson changes anyone's perspective on this issue. The statement is below along with the supporting chart.

I have been thinking a lot about Confederate monuments.

This hits home particularly for me; a Confederate statue graces the old courthouse lawn back in my hometown of Perry, GA, just as one sits at the center of downtown Bentonville, AR where I used to work. As it turns out, both were erected around the same time: Bentonville's in 1908, and Perry's in 1909!

Which got me thinking: 1909? Thatís strange. Thatís nearly half a century after the end of the Civil War. Why 1909?

Hereís why: in the aftermath of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld statesí rights to segregate public amenities, race was at the forefront of the national consciousness. In 1909, the NAACP was founded! And, at the same time, Jim Crow laws were designed to prevent black participation in democracy: between 1890 and 1910, ten of the eleven former Confederate states, starting with Mississippi, passed new constitutions or amendments that effectively disenfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites through a combination of poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, and residency and record-keeping requirements. In Arkansas, for instance, the Streetcar Segregation Act (1903) assigned separate but equal sections of streetcars to blacks and whites.

People today wrongly assume that Confederate monuments were built when the war concluded. The spate of Confederate monument building in the first ten years of the 20th century was actually a reactionary backlash against the integration of blacks as equals into our shared society.

It would be one thing if the monument represented some swansong of the rebels, a nostalgic view of a fallen ideal. But timing is everything: 1909 was the time when whites deployed their money and power to monumentalize racist, anti-black sentiment. That is what those monuments stand for. As such, they cannot stand.

Re: Civil War monument topic

I did not know this, but I found it on the internet, so it must be true.

I'm curious if this person's history lesson changes anyone's perspective on this issue. The statement is below along with the supporting chart.

I have been thinking a lot about Confederate monuments.

This hits home particularly for me; a Confederate statue graces the old courthouse lawn back in my hometown of Perry, GA, just as one sits at the center of downtown Bentonville, AR where I used to work. As it turns out, both were erected around the same time: Bentonville's in 1908, and Perry's in 1909!

Which got me thinking: 1909? Thatís strange. Thatís nearly half a century after the end of the Civil War. Why 1909?

Hereís why: in the aftermath of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld statesí rights to segregate public amenities, race was at the forefront of the national consciousness. In 1909, the NAACP was founded! And, at the same time, Jim Crow laws were designed to prevent black participation in democracy: between 1890 and 1910, ten of the eleven former Confederate states, starting with Mississippi, passed new constitutions or amendments that effectively disenfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites through a combination of poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, and residency and record-keeping requirements. In Arkansas, for instance, the Streetcar Segregation Act (1903) assigned separate but equal sections of streetcars to blacks and whites.

People today wrongly assume that Confederate monuments were built when the war concluded. The spate of Confederate monument building in the first ten years of the 20th century was actually a reactionary backlash against the integration of blacks as equals into our shared society.

It would be one thing if the monument represented some swansong of the rebels, a nostalgic view of a fallen ideal. But timing is everything: 1909 was the time when whites deployed their money and power to monumentalize racist, anti-black sentiment. That is what those monuments stand for. As such, they cannot stand.

They should stand in Civil War battlefields and civil war museums. That's where all of them should be, confederate and union. I was shocked to see so many in Baltimore (confederates)!

I think they should just cease with the whole public statue thing altogether. I guess it's the old graven image thing. I also think that rushing out to put the new Governor's name on all the state signs is pretty stupid too.

For good measure, I think Teddy Roosevelt should be sandblasted from the face of Mt Rushmore. Why someone thought he belonged with Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington I will never understand.

Re: Civil War monument topic

They should stand in Civil War battlefields and civil war museums. That's where all of them should be, confederate and union. I was shocked to see so many in Baltimore (confederates)!

I think they should just cease with the whole public statue thing altogether. I guess it's the old graven image thing. I also think that rushing out to put the new Governor's name on all the state signs is pretty stupid too.

For good measure, I think Teddy Roosevelt should be sandblasted from the face of Mt Rushmore. Why someone thought he belonged with Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington I will never understand.

Because his face was wide enough to cover up the clues to the Native American treasure, of course.

Re: Civil War monument topic

It is true, as I mentioned on another thread, ALL such monuments were erected decades after the War of Northern Aggression ended. This is true for statues dedicated to Confederates and to Yankees. In fact, the South led the way and after a time some in the north started saying, hey, we should erect monuments too.

In the immediate aftermath of the war, for at least 20 years, no one, north or South, was interested in remembering the war. It was a terrible time in our history. Back then, there were tens of thousands of veterans going around on wooden legs, many missing arms, many disfigured by horrible wounds, and of course, there were the over 600,000 graves holding the dead. It wasn't until the 1890's that people began to reflect on the war and to understand and appreciate the enormous sacrifice of the average soldier and of the great generals. Monuments started to be erected to honor the fallen and to remember the single most influential event in our nation's history. It also sent a message to the whole world: a democracy can survive internal strife. In the mid-19th Century the USA was still considered a "great political experiment" whose success was still in doubt.

I cannot say what motivated some to erect monuments in the early 20th Century. That article cited by RD claims the ONLY motivation was white backlash to political changes of the time. Maybe. Most of these monuments were put up by towns, counties, with the financial support of the state. Did some "redneck" town council in Bofunk, Mississippi erect a monument as a direct response to blacks winning more rights? I don't know. Perhaps that was their motivation. Or....maybe it wasn't.

But, most Confederate monuments were erected to remember/honor a "lost cause." To honor soldiers who fought and many who died. For Southerners in the 1890's and the early 20th Century it was to "not forget" and by lack of action assume a position of indifference. "Are you a Son of the South, or are you not?" It was easy, 40 years after the war, to show support for the "lost cause" by agreeing, yeah, let's erect a statue to Robert E. Lee and/or one to remember our local regiment who fought in the war. That was the majority view of the time.

Re: Civil War monument topic

So why keep them then? People are offended as the statues were designed to do. Are you saying people weren't offended before?

Originally Posted by maverick

Perhaps because the people who were (intentionally) intimidated and disenfranchised by the statues fear becoming marginalized again.

If this is about being offended then were is the line drawn? Japanese, Germans, Indians (no dot), etc.. can all claim being offended. It's like this...

"I'll wake up today and look around for things that offend me because of my skin color, sexual orientation, or religious preference. If I take a stand - even if it includes violence - I and my "cause" will be better for it."

Re: Civil War monument topic

Originally Posted by PawDawg

If this is about being offended then were is the line drawn? Japanese, Germans, Indians (no dot), etc.. can all claim being offended. It's like this...

"I'll wake up today and look around for things that offend me because of my skin color, sexual orientation, or religious preference. If I take a stand - even if it includes violence - I and my "cause" will be better for it."

Do you not distinguish between government acts that are intended to offend and those that have another purpose but have that effect?